The facilitation of multi-stakeholder collaboration addressing wicked problems confronting business : identifying competencies of multi-stakeholder collaboration facilitators

(1)

Identifying Competencies of Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

Facilitators

Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy in Sustainable Development in the

Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at Stellenbosch University

Supervisor: Ms Jess Schulschenk by

Carien Mills

(2)

i | P a g e

Declaration

By submitting this thesis electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification.

Carien Mills Date: March 2018

(3)

ii | P a g e

Abstract

Complex-adaptive challenges, known as wicked problems, are increasingly threatening economic, societal and ecological resilience. Businesses both contribute to and are affected by many wicked problems on a daily basis. Organisations cannot in isolation address wicked problems, resulting in calls for cross-sectoral collaboration. Prior research has established that collaborative multi-stakeholder processes can achieve collaborative advantage for participating stakeholders and society at large. However, less research has been conducted on how such collaborative processes can be facilitated and what competencies are required of a facilitator of such processes. My research sought to identify the competencies of a facilitator of multi-stakeholder collaboration processes addressing wicked problems.

I adopted a qualitative research approach applying grounded theory principles, informed by an interpretivist-constructionist research paradigm to answer my research questions. I gathered data through semi-structured interviews with experienced facilitators and drew on a literature study to compare and affirm interview findings against, as well as to identify other knowledge gaps.

I established that the facilitation processes consist of a primary and secondary process that is cumulatively best represented by Theory U’s five-phases. Stakeholders, the facilitator and the process pose numerous risks to the successful outcomes of a collaborative process, but the risks are likely to vary subject to the problem domain context and the relevant stakeholders. I identified design, container building and holding, intentional communication, self-awareness, and capacitation as five key facilitator competencies, together with the underlying knowledge, skills, aptitudes and character traits that constitute these. Further research can be conducted to affirm and substantiate the competencies identified together with exploring the mechanisms by which such competencies can be developed.

(4)

iii | P a g e

Opsomming

Kompleks-aanpasbare uitdagings, beter bekend as “bose” probleme, bedreig toenemend ekonomiese, gemeenskaps-, en ekologiese aanpasbaarheid. Besighede dra by tot en word daagliks deur hierdie bose probleme geraak. Organisasies kan nie in afsondering hierdie bose probleme aanspreek nie, wat lei tot versoeke vir intersektorale samewerking. Bestaande navorsing het vasgestel dat samewerkende multi-belanghebbende prosesse samewerkende voordeel vir deelnemende belanghebbendes en die samelewing as geheel kan inhou. Daar is egter baie min navorsing gedoen oor hoe sulke samewerkingsprosesse gefasiliteer kan word, en oor watter bevoegdhede 'n fasiliteerder van sulke prosesse moet beskik. My navorsing het gepoog om die vaardighede waaroor ’n fasiliteerder van multi-belanghebbende medewerkende prosesse wat bose probleme aanspreek moet beskik, te identifiseer.

Ek het ’n kwalitatiewe navorsingsbenadering aangewend wat beginsels van gegronde teorie toepas, met ’n interpreterende-konstruksionistiese navorsingsparadigma om my navorsingsvrae te beantwoord. Ek het data versamel deur middel van semi-gestruktureerde onderhoude met ervare fasiliteerders en ek het ook ’n literatuurstudie onderneem om die bevindinge te vergelyk en te bevestig, asook om verdere kennisgapings te identifiseer.

Ek het vasgestel dat die fasiliteringsprosesse bestaan uit primêre en sekondêre prosesse wat kumulatief die beste deur ‘Theory U’ se vyf fases verteenwoordig word. Belanghebbendes, die fasiliteerder, en die proses hou talle risiko’s in vir die suksesvolle uitkomste van ’n samewerkingsproses, maar die risiko’s sal waarskynlik wissel onderhewig aan die probleem-domein-konteks en die betrokke toepaslike belanghebbendes. Ek het ontwerp, ‘container building’ en ‘holding’, intensionele kommunikasie, selfbewustheid, en vaardigheid as vyf bevoegdhede van sleutelfasiliteerders, tesame met die onderliggende kennis, vaardighede, aanlegte, en karaktertrekke wat dit verteenwoordig, gebruik. Verdere navorsing kan gedoen word om die vaardighede wat geïdentifiseer is te bevestig, tesame met ’n ondersoek na die meganismes waardeur sulke vaardighede ontwikkel kan word.

(5)

iv | P a g e

Acknowledgements

Thank you very much to each of my study participants – without the generosity of your time and granting me the opportunity to dissect your ‘day-jobs’ this study would never have succeeded. Through your insight you have affirmed the voices in my head and together with Jess have contributed to an immensely rewarding personal journey. I hope I have done your craft justice!

Superwoman Jess, thank you are two very feeble words! Your persistent gentle guidance, knowing very-well that at times I am causing you great frustration, is heartily appreciated. I have learnt countless valuable lessons from you too. I hope the end product is something that you too are proud of as it was most certainly co-crafted. I will eventually learn to allow you to finish your sentence 

Charles daar is geen ander mens wie weet hoe baie ons moes op offer om hierdie M gedoen te kry nie. Jou onbaatsugtige opoffering en eindelose liefde en ondersteuning word inniglik baie waardeer. Hopelik sal ons nou jou houtwerk, vakansies en aftrede kan befonds!

(6)

v | P a g e

Never before has humanity been confronted with such a continuous onslaught of vastly diverse materialising risks. Figure 1 captures the greatest of these risks across all spheres of humanity – economic, social and environmental systems – in terms of likelihood and impact, as determined in 2017. Each of these risks represents ‘wicked problems’ rooted in systems that are in a state of near collapse (Rittel & Webber, 1973; Wahl & Baxter, 2008; Waddock, 2012; Gray & Stites, 2013). This onslaught of wicked problems each has a global and / or local impact across all aspects of business value chains, interrupting operations or threatening them as going-concerns. Business is, however, not blameless for the existence of many of these risks or rather wicked problems and should the root causes of many of them be mapped, business will prominently feature as a contributor (World Economic Forum, 2017). But what are such wicked problems?

(11)

2 | P a g e

1.1 Comprehending Wicked Problems

Wicked problems are defined as problems that involve many stakeholders with different values and priorities (Rittel, 1973). The roots of these problems are complex and encompass an evolving set of interlocking dynamic factors and constraints, with each problem being unique and novel. A wicked problem is difficult to come to terms with and with every attempt to address it, the problem evolves. There are no definitive solutions to the problem, merely ‘tentative solutions’ that improve or worsen the status quo of the problem domain (Rittel & Webber, 1973; Camillus, 2008). A simplified explanation of a problem domain is that it is a ‘set of actors (individuals, groups and / or organisations) that become joined by a common problem or interest’ (Gray, 1985:912).

As recognised by Gray (1985:914), ‘many of these problems exceed the capability of any single firm to control’ and ‘attempts by individual organisations to manage such turbulence are maladaptive at the [problem] domain level because they are uncoordinated and often create unanticipated problems for other stakeholders’. This ‘maladaptation’ is further exacerbated by resource competition, given that the value system of one stakeholder is often promoted at the expense of another when attempting to address the problem in an isolated capacity. Given both the role of business in contributing to wicked problems and the impact of wicked problems on businesses going forward, how should these wicked problems be addressed?

1.2 Collaboration

In order to confront the ‘complexly-interconnected system’ which wicked problems are nested in, prior research suggests solutions must adopt the same multi-dimensional, multi-faceted, dynamic, interconnected nature of the problems (Wahl & Baxter, 2008:76).

Businesses that are affected by one or more wicked problems have often established participatory forums for stakeholders to facilitate multi-stakeholder collaboration, allowing for a ‘broader knowledge base’ to collectively and inclusively create an elevated level of thinking (Wahl & Baxter, 2008:76; Crous, 2011). As wicked problems involve multiple stakeholders, they also call for multiple stakeholders to be involved in co-creating possible solutions. Facilitators coordinating a collaborative process form ‘work-groups’ (Phillips & Phillips 1993:533) of stakeholders, defined as

(12)

3 | P a g e

‘those people who have an interest in a particular decision either as individuals or representatives of a group’ (Dodds and Benson, 2013:1). Representation within the work-groups is usually cross-sectoral including participants from business, government, non-governmental organisations and civil society (Gray & Stites, 2013).

Since the 1980s, there have been many calls for collaboration in solving such wicked problems (Gray, 1985; Bryson, Crosby & Stone, 2006; Bendell, Collins & Roper, 2010; Waddock, 2012) and a marked increase in collaborative engagements to the extent that:

these multi-stakeholder partnerships have been called the ‘collaboration paradigm of the 21st century’, the ‘new organisational zeitgeist in dealing with societal issues’, and a stunning evolutionary change in institutional form of governance’ (Gray & Stites, 2013:11).

The collaboration process strives to achieve collective decision making and actions taken to address the mutual problem domain between a ‘set of actors’ (Gray, 1985:912). In this study, I draw on a definition of collaboration as the ‘pooling of appreciations and / or tangible resources, e.g. information, money, labour etc. by two or more stakeholders to solve a set of problems which neither can solve individually’ (Gray, 1985:912). Collaboration is both a process and an outcome, and I use the term interchangeably. I focus on inter-organisational collaboration as opposed to collaboration within a single organisation (intra-organisational). A problem domain ascribes to the definition of a wicked problem and includes various humanitarian and environmental crises such as water scarcity, food security, deforestation, AIDS, child labour and so on.

1.2.1 How to Successfully Achieve Collaboration

In his extensive research on collaboration, Huxham (2003) co-developed the theory that inter-organisational collaboration (namely multi-stakeholder collaboration) is driven by stakeholders hoping to harness ‘collaborative advantage’, while Phillips and Phillips (1993:538) contend that, ‘under the right circumstance’ collaboration amounts to a whole ‘greater than the sum of its parts’ with stakeholders attempting to capture these emergent synergies. Such emergent synergistic benefits could not be achieved by attempting to address the problem domain in isolation (Hardy, Lawrence & Grant, 2005). Collaboration also allows for risks, outcomes and accountability of shared

(13)

4 | P a g e

efforts to be assumed collectively (Gray & Stites, 2013). Huxham (2003:403), however, warns of possible ‘collaborative inertia’ within collaborations, when ‘the output from collaborative arrangements often appears to be negligible or the rate of output is extremely slow’.

The objective of my research is to understand how facilitators can achieve collaborative advantage and mitigate the risks associated with collaborative inertia. The premise of my study is that facilitators need to have a good awareness of the phases inherent to collaboration processes, as well as of the risks associated with each phase. By studying how collaboration processes are facilitated, I undertake to identify the competencies that a facilitator may need to develop accordingly.

1.2.2 Collaboration, Facilitation and Dialogue

Collaboration has been explored through various lenses in research to date. Figure 2 summarises Dentoni and Ross’s (2013) review of existing literature of ‘when’, ‘which’, ‘why and ‘how’ multi-stakeholder collaborations are effective in dealing with wicked problems.

Figure 2: When, Which, Why and How are multi-stakeholder collaborations effective in dealing with wicked problems? (Dentoni & Ross, 2013:4)

‘When’ research has previously investigated the conditions internal and external to an organisation that would motivate participation in collaboration (Gray, 1985; Wood & Gray, 1991); ‘which’ research has sought to establish what type of governance

(14)

5 | P a g e

mechanisms would best accommodate the purpose of the collaboration (Roloff 2008; Rondinelli & London 2003; Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos 2011) and ‘why’ research has examined the objectives motivating an organisation to enter into collaboration (Huxham, 2003; Huxham & Vangen, 2013).

Scholars have also explored ‘how’ multi-stakeholder collaboration can effectively deal with wicked problems, but the findings are inconclusive (Dentoni & Ross, 2013). Most prior research has predominantly focused on either the governance frameworks of collaboration partnerships or is case-study orientated on successful or failed collaboration attempts (Gray, 1985; Mattessich & Monsey, 1992; Kanter, 1994; Huxham & Vangen, 2013).

Although less scholarly attention has been given to facilitation as being the mechanism that enables collaboration, considerable work has been published on dialogue which I consider relevant to this study. The concept of dialogue in the form it is used here ‘arose out of series of conversations begun in 1983’ and was first proposed by theoretical physicist David Bohm (Bohm, Factor & Garrett, 1991:¶1-6). Bohm reasoned that humanity’s though processes are fragmented (Bohm et al., 1991; Freeth & Annecke, 2016) and that it is this fragmentation of thought which interferes with our ability to meaningfully communicate and engage across the various spheres of society without it resulting in ‘dispute, division and often violence’ (Bohm et al., 1991:1). Dialogue provides a platform to examine the roots of the many present day humanitarian crises which Bohm et al. (1991) argues were caused by this fragmented thought.

Dialogue does not provide a solution to humanity's thought fragmentation, but rather is seen as a strategy that can induce an alternative ‘condition of thought’ (Isaacs, 1993b:30). Bohm explained that based on its origins, ‘dia’ and ‘logos’, the word dialogue can be understood as ‘flow of meaning’ (Isaacs, 1993b:25-26). He argued that by slowing down the flow of thoughts individuals and groups could better observe their fragmentation and the problems they generated (Bohm et al., 1991; Isaacs, 1993b; Freeth & Annecke, 2016). The slowing down of thought processes would thus enable the dismantling of entrenched mental positions and loosen the assumptions on which these are built (Burchell & Cook, 2008). How dialogue is able to achieve this will be extensively explored in the literature review.

(15)

6 | P a g e

Schein (1993:41) identifies the ‘skill of dialogue … [as] one of the most fundamental’ human skills to possess. This skill is an increasingly important one considering the shift in humanity to explore and resolve the increasingly complex problems (Payne & Calton, 2002). Freeth and Annecke (2016:369) agree with Schein, but rather refer to the skill as facilitation. Phillips and Phillips (1993:533) define facilitation as helping a ‘work group’ to develop a ‘shared understanding of the issues’ they are confronting; to identify a communal purpose, undertaking a joint commitment to take action; and to realise these objectives. Harvey, Loftus‐Hills, Rycroft‐Malone, Titchen, Kitson, McCormack, and Seers’s (2002:579) definition emphasises helping as ‘a technique by which on person makes things easier for others’. This definition is consistent with the Oxford English Dictionary – ‘to make easier, to promote, to help forward, to lessen the labour of’. Harvey et al. (2002:579) further propose that these definitions suggest that facilitation ‘is achieved by an individual carrying out a specific role (a facilitator), which aims to help others … [these] are individuals with the appropriate roles, skills and knowledge to help individuals, teams and organizations’.

While prior research has established why, when and which collaborative processes are undertaken in order to address wicked problems (Bendell et al, 2010, Dentoni and Ross, 2013), we know less about how a collaboration process is actually facilitated in practice, and what would be required of an individual to successfully facilitate it. The aim of my research is to address this gap and contribute to our understanding of the deemed competencies of a multi-stakeholder collaboration facilitator.

1.3 Problem Statement, Research Questions and Objectives

Collaboration offers a meaningful approach for organisations seeking to address wicked problems, yet we know little about the competencies required of an individual to facilitate such a collaborative process. My research therefore aims to understand:

i. What are the core components which could form part of successfully facilitated multi-stakeholder collaboration processes addressing wicked problems confronting business?

ii. What are the risks to facilitating such multi-stakeholder collaboration processes?

iii. What are the core competencies required of a facilitator in order to facilitate such a process?

(16)

7 | P a g e

iv. How are these competencies developed?

By answering the above research questions, the objective of this study is to:

i. Identify core components or phases of multi-stakeholder collaboration processes.

ii. Identify risks to such multi-stakeholder collaboration processes.

iii. Identify core competencies required by multi-stakeholder collaboration facilitators.

iv. Identify how these competencies can be developed or learnt by individuals.

1.4 Importance and Significance of the Research Problem

I undertook this research because of my personal interest in multi-stakeholder facilitation. I recognise the pressing need for such facilitators as well as their potential contribution in helping to address the wicked problems confronting humanity. I believe the findings will serve as guidance on how to steer my personal and professional development so I too can develop into a facilitator of such processes. I also hope that this research will clarify to other sustainable development graduates who are aspiring facilitators that developing the competencies to facilitate such processes is a life-long learning and development journey.

Furthermore, my research may provide further practical guidance and insight to organisations of the importance and relevance of an independent facilitator and the need for ‘professional’ facilitation when partaking in multi-stakeholder collaborative engagements.

Lastly, I endeavour for this research to highlight the importance of engaged scholarship in redressing gaps in research and for my research to contribute to the facilitation and collaboration discourse within academia.

1.5 Thesis Outline

My thesis proceeds as follows. In chapter two I conduct a literature review – I reference various discourses (collaboration, dialogue, psychology, transformative adult education, and various practitioner literature sources) to identify the core collaboration facilitation process components, key risks thereto and core

(17)

8 | P a g e

competencies of such facilitators. In chapter three, I outline my research design, data collection and analysis, and strategies to improve research rigour. In chapter four, I present my interview findings, in a manner consistent with the conceptual framework structure the research questions provide. I identify five core competencies (design, container building and holding, intentional communication, self-awareness, and capacitation) that are essential to a facilitator facilitating the core phases of the collaborative process whilst mitigating potential risks identified thereto. In chapter five I contrast my findings and literature, highlighting agreements and differences as well as discussing some of the implications for both academia and practitioners. Finally, in chapter six, I conclude my thesis with directions for future research.

(18)

9 | P a g e

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

I have structured my literature study using my research questions as a conceptual framework for exploring both academic and practitioner literatures. I first seek to identify the core components of a multi-stakeholder collaboration process. I examine how dialogue has been established as a foundation to facilitation followed by exploring the principles practitioners have used to extend the practice thereof. Drawing on arguments and conclusions within the literature, I answer my second research question by identifying risks to the process and other aspects of facilitation. From the aforementioned discussions, I am able to answer my third research question and identify competencies that a facilitator would need to possess in order to successfully facilitate such multi-stakeholder collaboration processes.

2.1 Question 1 – Process: Identifying Core components of multi-Stakeholder Collaboration Processes

Much has been written about the complex interdependencies of 21st century problems and the need for nurturing a broader spectrum of ‘patterns of mind and consciousness to meet the demands’ of these problems (Gunnlaugson, 2007:139). Indeed, mankind is being compelled to develop ‘the capacity to think together to develop collaborative thought and coordinated action’ (Isaacs, 1993b:24). Schamer (2006:7) presents that we are required ‘to become aware and change the inner place from where we operate’, and that this ‘represents the only part of our common consciousness that we can have complete control of’. Transformation begins with the ability to see afresh, ‘requiring suspension of preconceptions, of fear, of judgment and indeed, of thought as we commonly know it in the western traditions’, but such suspension entails disorientating and potentially frightening personal work (Walker, n.d:3). Freeth and Annecke (2016:370) believe humanity then has to pro-actively disrupt these ‘old patterns of thinking, seeing and being’.

Prior research has focused largely on the concept of dialogue and the transformation of ‘habits of mind’ (Mezirow, 1997), and less scholarly attention has been paid to facilitation. In this study, I focus on processes that have enabled mental transformation, which require individuals to be prompted or guided to ask very different questions of themselves to create a shift in mind-sets, elevating

(19)

10 | P a g e

consciousness and generating new insights – a metanoia1-of-sorts. I adopt this metanoia-of-sorts as my examination lens for my first research question, namely: what are the core components which form part of a successfully facilitated multi-stakeholder collaboration process addressing wicked problems confronting business?

I answer this question by first establishing a foundation based on Bohm’s dialogue concept followed by integrating it with Transformative Adult Education literature, Theory U, generative dialogue and other common facilitation themes that emerge from literature. I conclude by transposing a synthesis of practitioner frameworks onto the facilitation principles established.

2.1.1 Bohmian Dialogue

In the past, collaborative processes have tried to reconcile stakeholders’ various frames of reference using a ‘contemporary science’ lens. However, this approach has proven largely unsuccessful in addressing wicked problems, restricted by its reductionist perspective and its ‘dogmatic adherence to a particular set of onto-epistemological assumptions’. (Wahl & Baxter, 2008:76).

Wahl and Baxter (2008:76) propose that dialogue provides a platform that enables the observation and exploration of the ‘pluralism of perspectives’ and the ‘wisdom of many minds’ in order to engage in the progression of human consciousness. It is a multi-faceted process which is not only concerned with ‘conversational parlance and exchange’ (Wahl & Baxter, 2008:76), but rather examines individual and collective ‘feelings, emotions, intentions and desires’, which constitute human thought (Bohm et al., 1991:¶2-2). As further explained by Diamond (in Burchell & Cook, 2008:37), the intention of dialogue ‘is not to advocate, but to inquire, not to argue but to explore, [and] not to convince but to discover’.

Dialogue explores the mental modes (Schein, 1993:41) as well as the perspectives, culture and value systems of both individuals and organisations (Bohm et al., 1991). Dialogue attempts to invoke reflection on how these mental modes control or manipulate human behaviour, as well as how ‘unnoticed cultural differences’ can ignorantly cause conflict (Bohm et al., 1991:¶1-3). It also attempts to surface the

1

A fundamental change or transformation in mind, character or outlook; often associated with spiritual penitence

(20)

11 | P a g e

‘hidden meaning of words’, creating shared meaning and mutual understanding (Schein, 1993:41). Dialogue consequently facilitates a ‘more progressive form of engagement and understanding’ transcending traditional communication (Burchell & Cook, 2008:37; Schein, 1993). This collectively leads to the co-creation of shared knowledge and insight, creativity, innovation and a fellowship-of-sorts within the collaboration forum (Bohm et al., 1991; van Huisjtee & Glasbergen, 2008).

Dialogue can help humanity evolve the fragmented individual and collective thoughts that have led to socio-ecological devastation. Optimally facilitated dialogue has the ability to ‘create more sustainable solutions’ (Wahl & Baxter, 2008:76) stemming from a synthesis of inclusive, collective and integrative trans-disciplinary decision making. It is a process that allows for diverse constituencies to be brought together that are attempting to establish consensus on a ‘complex, multifaceted and in some cases, divisive issue’ (Dodds & Benson, 2013:1).

Dialogue can further help us gain insights into our perception of reality, a construct of ‘concepts, memories and reflexes coloured by our personal needs, fears, and desires’ and frames of reference (Bohm et al., 1991:¶2-3). By doing so, dialogue has the potential to redresses the ‘mistaken belief that [our] perception of reality reflects reality and that there is only one true perspective’ (Freeth & Annecke, 2016:372).

2.1.1.1 No goal or purpose

Bohm’s original concept of dialogue was limited by its lack of apparent goal and ‘detectable direction’ (Bohm et al., 1991:¶4-2). This lack of guidance carried the risk of generating immense inner turmoil, frustration and anxiety (Bohm et al., 1991). To address this limitation, Phillips and Phillips (1993:58) explain that a facilitator would be present in initial phases to ‘help the group manage its anxiety and frustration’.

2.1.1.2 Suspension

Dialogue has been established on the foundation of ‘suspension’. Bohm et al. (1991) describe this seeming action as paying attention – observing and listening – to the emotions that are evoked within oneself when processing what others say. They explain that thought processes slow down when an individual pays attention to the feelings that accompany a particular thought – cumulatively becoming aware of their own psyche and those of others (Bohm et al., 1991). The purpose thereof is for the

(21)

12 | P a g e

individual and group to develop the ability to observe ‘the deeper meanings’ underpinning their thought processes and to sense the action that would otherwise automatically accompany it (Bohm et al., 1991:¶5-4).). Schein (1993:43) elaborates that it is focusing ‘more on the thinking process and how our perceptions and cognitions are pre-formed by our past experiences’.

Suspension cultivates the ability within a person to ‘experience the nature of thought, rationality and consciousness’ to the extent that they are less reified in their frames of references. This allows an individual to develop a less attached yet more attentive relationship with their own ‘knowledge, beliefs and perspectives’ (Gunnlaugson, 2006:5). Individuals are therefore able to put distance between themselves and their thoughts – ‘to learn to have our thoughts and not be our thoughts, to have our feelings rather than be our feelings’ (Kegan in Gunnlaugson, 2007). This is the development within an individual of the ‘subject-object’ psychology principle, an essential facilitation and self-awareness skill (Gunnlaugson, 2007:144). This principle can be explained as:

 Subject – that which you are associated with, are embedded in or tied to

 Object – is the transcendence of subject, being able to hold, observe and reflect on your ‘ideas, beliefs, feelings, experiences’ and relationships with self and others (Gunnlaugson, 2007:144).

This frees up energy and capacity within the individual to consider the perspectives or manner of thinking of others in a respectful and inclusive way. This open ‘field of inquiry’ stimulates a ‘shared willingness’ by participants to be cautiously inquisitive ‘and ultimately less invested in either asserting [personal] perspectives or refuting others’ perspectives’ (Gunnlaugson, 2006:5).

Suspension is of even greater value when encountering ‘difference, dissonance’ and ‘judgment’ as illustrated in Figure 2 below. In Figure 2, Schein (1993:46) demonstrates the flow of thought when an individual is confronted by a ‘form of disconfirmation’. The process flow on the right reflects the avenue an individual would ’ordinarily’ pursue when they assume their point was misunderstood. Schein (1993) infers that a ‘conscious’ individual would pursue the avenue to the left. This illustration of suspension of feelings, judgment and impulses emphasises the need to first acutely listen to ourselves before actively listening to others.

(22)

13 | P a g e

Figure 3: Ways of talking together (Schein, 1993:46)

If the individual and group become more aware of their preformed responses, the premise is that they will develop the ability to think better collectively and communicate better (Bohm et al., 1991). The authors reiterate that this creates room for ‘coherent, collective intelligence’ to evolve within the group (Bohm et al.1991:¶5-4). Schein (1993:43) explains that they are able to ‘reach a higher level of consciousness and creativity through the gradual creation of a shared set of meanings and common thinking process’. This ability however only develops through ‘arduous’ work, until it becomes effortless (Bohm et al., 1991:¶5-4).

The skill of the facilitator is tested in such a scenario as they should not seek to ‘correct or impose order’ on the situation but instead ‘model how to suspend what is happening’ and allow for greater insight of the present to surface (Isaacs, 1993b:37).

Several authors (Bohm et al. 1991; Isaacs, 1993b; Cranton & Roy, 2003; Freeth & Annecke, 2016) agree that when the individuals and the group have developed the ability of suspension, it is possible ‘for the bottom of the bucket to fall out’ (Cranton & Roy, 2003:86). It is likely that the individuals and the group may experience a sense of pain and loss, because all they knew to be reality has been brought into question. The pain stems ‘from the loss of comforting beliefs and from the exercise of new

(23)

14 | P a g e

cognitive and emotional muscles’ (Isaacs, 1993b:37-38; Cranton & Roy, 2003). Isaacs (1993b:38) reasons that a ‘crisis of collective pain’ may form within the group too because of the isolation experienced from their now greater awareness of their previous thought limitations.

Bohm et al’s. (1991) research, however, concludes that euphoria and relaxation will eventually replace the ‘vertigo and disequilibrium’ (Freeth & Annecke, 2016:375) once ‘increased coherence’ (Bohm et al., 1991:¶4-6) and the generation of ‘new meaning’ (Cranton & Roy, 2003: 86) is stimulated. This is because the group would have loosened their ‘rigid thought patterns’ (Isaacs, 1993b:38) or removed ‘perceived blocks [and] limitations’, and would have moved ‘into new territory’ (Bohm et al., 1991:¶4-6) namely a higher level of consciousness. A sensation of fellowship or relational connectedness may be experienced within the group – this is akin to the sense of safety, security and belonging experienced in group therapy or team building workshops (Bohm et al., 1991). It also assures the group that, with enough inward looking, new solutions can be crafted within the group and they do not need to look outwards for assistance (Phillips & Phillips, 1993).

The spectrum of emotion felt and experienced becomes a central focus of the ‘meta-dialogue’ exploration as ‘thoughts and feelings that are usually kept hidden’ are permitted to surface (Bohm et al., 1991:¶4-4). They further infer that this aids:

 Generating shared meaning with participants no longer opposing one another.

 Fostering increased trust in the group and the process.

 Building consensus that is not imposed nor is conflict avoided.

 Avoiding domination of an individual or sub-group as both domination and submission are ‘always available to be considered’. (Bohm et al., 1991:¶4-4).

To conclude, Schein (1993:47) proposes that the greater the collective understanding of bias; hidden meaning in discourse; individual thinking and expression of each participant is, ‘the easier decision making becomes and the more likely the decision will be implemented in the way the group meant it’. Suspension is an important component of the facilitation process and is essential to bringing about a metanoia within the individuals and group.

(24)

15 | P a g e

2.1.1.3 Reconciling and Transforming Frames of References

One of the greatest obstacles for facilitators in a multi-stakeholder collaborative process is that of capacitating participants to reconcile, evaluate and elevate the individual and organisational frames of references held by stakeholders. The literature referenced interchangeably refers to frames of references as perspectives or positions held. Building on suspension, I further examine this obstacle from a Transformative Adult Learning and Education scholarship lens.

Frames of references are constructed from the assumptions we formulate to comprehend our experiences and are ‘primarily the result of cultural assimilation and the idiosyncratic influences of primary caregivers’ (Mezirow, 1997:5). This body of inner knowledge and experiences ‘shape and delimit [an individual’s] expectations, perceptions, cognitions and feelings’ and, once formulated, allow the individual to ‘automatically move from one activity (mental or behavioural) to another’ (Mezirow, 1997:5). An individual’s frame of reference includes:

 ‘Interpersonal relationships

 Political orientations

 Cultural bias

 Ideologies

 Schemata

 Stereotyped attitudes and practices

 Occupational habits of mind

 Religious doctrine

 Moral-ethical norms

 Psychological preferences and schema

 Paradigms in science and mathematics

 Frames in linguistics and social sciences frames, and

 Aesthetic values and standards’. (Mezirow in Gunnlaugson, 2007:136).

Mezirow (in Gunnlaugson, 2007:136) further divides a frame of reference into two distinct parts:

(25)

16 | P a g e

 Point of view – ‘an outward perspective’ ‘in response to a given life-world

situation or set of circumstances’ (Gunnlaugson, 2007:136), it is a ‘constellation’ of beliefs, value judgments, attitudes and feelings which frame this outward perspective (Mezirow, 1997:6)

The latter is articulated out of the former, which Mezirow argues is more ‘deeply woven into [an individual’s] character, worldview and habitual ways of interpretation’ (Gunnlaugson, 2007:136). Mezirow (1997:6) explains that ‘habits of mind’ are more robust than points of view which may continuously fluctuate if events or actions do not unfold as anticipated. An individual would then begin to critically reflect on either the content or process around which the problem is centred, identifying and altering incorrect assumptions (Mezirow, 1997). This represents the apex of transformative adult learning (Gunnalugson, 2007).

Habermas (in Mezirow 1997:6) called such critical reflection ‘communicative learning’. Gunnlaugson (2007) consequently reasons that the chief vehicle of communicative learning is spoken discourse. To fully participate in critical discourse, Mezirow (2003:60) concludes that participants need to develop two distinct capabilities – that of ‘critical self-reflection’ and ‘reflective judgment’. The latter is the ability to critically engage in the ‘assessment of assumptions and expectations supporting beliefs, values and feelings’ (Mezirow, 2003:60). A facilitator must be able to impart these abilities to participants.

Transformative Learning literature proposes that there are four processes of learning (Mezirow, 1997:7):

 Affirming an ‘existing point of view’ by seeking further ‘evidence to support’ it – this serves to ‘expand the range of intensity of [the] point of view’.

 ‘Establishing new points of view’ – encountering new evidence that creates new ‘meaning schemes’.

 Transformation of a point of view – an individual critically reflects on their own ‘misconceptions’, which may result in changed assumptions.

 Transformation of habit of mind – an individual becomes critically aware and reflective of their own ‘generalized bias’ (Mezirow, 1997:7). Cranton and Roy (2003:95) state that previous ‘uncritically assimilated assumptions or perspectives’ would be rejected, generating capacity for ‘beliefs to become

(26)

17 | P a g e

more open, permeable, and better validated’. This transformation differentiates the individual ‘from the collective’, bringing ‘the unconscious to the consciousness’ and creating the need to ‘regroup with more like-minded individuals’. To become an ‘authentic’ human being, a person has to reiteratively engage in such ‘individuation’. (Cranton & Roy, 2003:95).

Within the context of this research, the process strives to stimulate the latter two learning transformation processes within participants of the group.

Gunnlaugson (2007) likens the process of learning to that of suspension within dialogue and Otto Scharmer’s presencing within Theory U and the generative dialogue frameworks. Presencing is learning from that which is emerging. Before moving into the realm of presencing, an individual first has to be able to recognise their ‘habitual ways of interpreting’ and responding to circumstances and the assumptions on which these interpretations are based. This requires suspension of judgment, silent observations and patience (Senge, Jaworski, Scharmer & Flowers, 2004:4). Where suspension is a reflective practice on the present and the past, presencing is orientated to the present and the future.

Presencing requires an individual to pay attention to that which they sense within themselves but which has not yet been processed into coherent knowledge and understanding (Gunnlaugson, 2007:140). It moves away from purely deriving meaning and comprehension from ‘discursive reasoning’, evolving into a contemplative practice of observing ideas and beliefs and ‘pre-sensing emerging meaning and knowledge’ (Gunnlaugson, 2007:141). This could be summarised as developing a capacity or rather skill for ‘meta-awareness’ – an ‘awareness of sensorimotor schematas, emotions, desires and thoughts that tumble through our being’ (Jordan in Gunnlaugson, 2007:145).

In a facilitative session this awareness’ presents as having a ‘meta-conversation about the existing ‘meta-conversation’ (Gunnlaugson, 2007:145). Facilitators will initially have to force this ‘recursive conversation’ of what was spoken of, ‘felt, intuited, or sensed’ (Gunnlaugson, 2007:145) on members of the group, who may become frustrated because it may appear as though the conversation is not moving forward. Various authors argue that this is an important element to negotiate within the realm of facilitation as participants need to learn to observe and explore such discursive subtleties as spoken words, tone, emotion and body language. Rapid

(27)

18 | P a g e

prototyping and experimentation is recommended next in the process so the group acts whilst still open to inspiration. Walker (n.d.) claims that we only learn something new through executing it and then consequently adapting it as needed.

Unlike Bohm who gave no learning guidance, Scharmer presents the framework depicted in Figure 3 below to represent the manner in which learners may develop the competencies of thinking and learning together, moving counter clockwise starting at the bottom left. Each development phase lists a set of characteristics consisting of ‘ways of listening, orientation to learning in relation to time, habits of attention and speech acts’ (Gunnlaugson, 2006: 7). Facilitating ‘generative dialogue is a discipline of lifelong learning and practices’ (Gunnlaugson, 2006:9).

Figure 3: Adapted from ‘Four fields of generative dialogue’ (Scharmer in Gunnlaugson, 2006)

Learning has three sources – the past, the present and the future. Although looking to the past to comprehend how the wicked problem came to be, the solutions cannot stem from historical thinking, as previously discussed. The concepts suspension and presencing explore solutions in the present and the future hence the potential for a knowledge revolution. While suspension or presencing alone may not bring ‘about a fundamental change’ (Gunnlaugson, 2007:144) in a participant’s position held within a collaborative process, they facilitate and stimulate a transition within an individual from ‘being focally identified with [their] thoughts or feelings to being free to witness them’. This could be argued to represent a more ‘complex order of consciousness’ (Gunnlaugson, 2007:144) and ‘can alter people’s ways of thinking and acting in their systems (Isaacs, 1993b:27).

(28)

19 | P a g e

2.1.2 Holding and Containing Environments

Crous (2011:100) suggest that participants in a collaboration process require a ‘nurturing environment’ which enables them to constructively deal ‘with complex issues’. To achieve successful facilitation, a facilitator is encouraged to cultivate a ‘safe-enough’ environment that permeates an atmosphere of ‘mutual trust, respect and transparency’ (Crous, 2011:100). Gunnlaugson interchangeably compares such a safe space to a ‘holding environment’, first conceived by Donald Winnicott in 1953 (Gunnlaugson, 2007) and a ‘container’, first referenced by Wilfred Bion in 1959

–

(Finlay 2015). I explore these two concepts next.

2.1.2.1 The Holding Environment

The concept of the holding environment initially served to describe the ‘optimal environment for ‘good-enough’ parenting’ (Finlay, 2015:1). Winnicott’s theory can be explained drawing on the metaphor of the ‘good-enough’ mother who has the ability to anticipate and identify ‘with what the child is feeling’ (Castelloe, 2010:1). The manner by which she expresses this psychic presence and empathy (Castelloe, 2010) is through holding the infant – metaphorically and literally. The mother would purposefully attempt to ‘insulate her baby from the impact of stress, carefully choosing the moments’ when frustrations are to be slowly allowed ‘into the child’s experience’ (Finlay, 2015:1). The mother would initially adapt her being almost completely to the ‘infant’s needs’ and with time gradually adapt ‘less and less’ as the infant’s capacity to deal with- and process- failure grows (Finlay, 2015:1). A parent would systematically ‘increase the amount of time between a child’s emotional expression of a reaction/need (e.g. crying) and the meeting of that need (feeding, comforting)’ (Finlay, 2015:1). This process allows infants to develop the understanding that they can survive (even flourish) without ‘being overwhelmed by emotions or needs, until the parent eventually comes and provides’ (Finlay, 2015:1) it. This consequently develops the infant’s own capacity for ‘tolerating displeasure and handling intense emotion’ (Castelloe, 2010:1).

Castelloe (2010:1) states that an individual’s or a group’s ‘experience of receiving empathy during’ trauma of any sort in turn fosters ‘empathy for others’. ‘When a person or group is a holding environment they foster a sense of emotional cohesiveness’ – creating a space which allows the other to feel. She further quotes psychoanalyst Benjamin’s description of holding: ‘the ability to bear one's feelings

(29)

20 | P a g e

without losing or fragmenting oneself’ – very apt within the dialogue context (Castelloe, 2010:1).

Within the context of Transformative Learning, Gunnlaugson (2007:141) positions a holding environment as ‘a reference to the quality of the contexts out of which [individuals] grow’. He proposes that generative dialogue practice produces a ‘collective learning space’ that with time creates a supportive holding environment for participants’ needs. This is of particular importance when the dialogue surfaces ‘disorienting dilemmas’ or ‘destabilising’ issues that could cause great anxiety within individuals and the collaboration group. He further reasons that the practices of suspension and presencing within generative dialogue enhance the holding environment as it promotes ‘a sense of safety, openness and trust’. The capacity to ‘simply be’ in the moment and to ‘co-construct meaning from the shared’ ‘presencing of the group’, aids these characteristics of the holding environment (Gunnnlaugson, 2007:141).

A first building block for initiating a holding environment is the establishment of a reliable and consistent approach by the facilitator (Ferraro, 2012). This clarifies what the group can expect and makes it easier for the facilitator to maintain appropriate boundaries with the group. Such consistency should ultimately (as it may take longer with some individuals) manifest itself as a safe, trustworthy space between the individuals and the facilitator (Ferraro, 2012).

2.1.2.2 Container – Containing

The metaphorical ‘container’ bears a close resemblance to the ‘holding environment’, but Parry (2010) explains that these are different constructs. Holding or the holding environment focuses on the external environment or the “transitional stage between internal and external” (Symington & Symington in Parry, 2010:5) whereas a ‘container is an internal phenomenon’ (Parry, 2010:5).

Bion’s theory examines ‘how a mother receives unwanted and/or overwhelming projections from an infant; processes them; and then returns the experience to the infant in a modified, palatable form’ (Bion in Finlay, 2015:1). Bion believed that ‘infants become overwhelmed by their experience as they lack sufficient internal controls’ and that the mother’s containing aids the development of the infant’s self-regulation capacity (Bion in Finlay, 2015:1). The infant internalises the sensation of

(30)

21 | P a g e

being contained and ‘experiences the mother’s emotional availability’, inevitably developing the ‘capacity to do the same’ (Finlay, 2015:1). The term container refers to the place of projection (for example the mother or facilitator) and contained refers to that which is projected (for example anxiety, fear, stress).

This concept was extended to psychotherapy and the role of the therapist, who metabolises the thoughts and feelings of the patient and re-represents them in a ‘more understandable and less potentially destructive’ way (Finlay, 2015:1). I propose that facilitators fulfil a role similar to that of a therapist. They metabolise and digest any anxiety, apprehension, ambiguity and uncertainty participants may be experiencing and reproduce it in a manner that can be accepted and internalised by participants. Participants would again feel safe and supported but importantly experience the freedom of not having to ‘hold it all in’ themselves (Lacombe, n.d.). It is important that the facilitator is able to ‘self-regulate’ and possess the capacity to actually consume and metabolise the spectrum of emotions (Lacombe, n.d.).

To conclude, a ‘high quality container can support the emergence of polarised or controversial perspectives and sensitive topics in a way that does not threaten’ participants (Gunnlaugson, 2006:13). The holding environment created by the facilitator and / or the group) thus provides the safety for the individual to let go and express the turmoil originating from the ‘unknown’ that is surfaced through suspension and presencing. The container (namely the facilitator) absorbs and metabolises the turmoil of the individual and / or group and reproduces it in a manner that the individual and / or group are able to process. These processes should systematically enhance the internal control capacity of the individual and / or group. Schein (1993) infers that it is this ‘safety’ within a container that permits and motivates change within the individual and system as opposed to the process of dialogue itself.

2.1.3 Critique of Bohmian Dialogue

Gunnlaugson’s (2006:6) criticism of Bohmiam dialogue includes the over-fascination with ‘observing and learning about the process of thought itself’. It is possible to argue that should true Bohmian dialogue be deployed within the research context that groups may be led to focus more on the ‘exploration of the nature and process of thought’ ‘teasing out nuanced distinctions and abstractions of meaning’ rather than focusing on the wicked problem at hand (Gunnlaugson, 2006:6).

(31)

22 | P a g e

Bohm’s definition of thought incorporates all the dimensions of the human experience, namely the ‘physical, emotional, intellectual and intuitional’. As a result the definition ‘overlooks important distinctions’ between each of these – restricting the ‘validity’ and the contribution of each dimension to human cognition as well as its ‘expression’ (Gunnlaugson, 2006:6).

Although permitted with a very light touch in the initial phases of dialogue, Bohm restricted the further assistance of a facilitator – leaving participants to deal with their own confusion and anxiety. Lastly, Bohm did not propose any frameworks or methodologies to assist ‘the vast majority of people’ to actually comprehend and make sense of the dialogue experience (Cayer in Gunnlaugson, 2006:6). Cayer indicates that this has resulted in it being misunderstood and practitioners have diluted its application from the original intention. In light of the aforementioned relevant and valid critique, I would not propose that pure Bohmian dialogue be solely used to facilitate multi-stakeholder collaboration processes.

2.1.4 Extending on the Dialogue Principles

Research to date presents the principles of dialogue as the foundation for many facilitators who subsequently expand on this using other frameworks, methodologies and techniques. In this section, I examine core components within the process and other facilitation principles deployed in multi-stakeholder collaboration processes.

2.1.4.1 The convener

The collaboration process requires convening in order to be initiated. An umbrella organisation may exist that governs a domain and it may be necessary to appeal to such an authority to convene a process (Gray, 1985). In the absence of such a governing authority, a stakeholder whose values are congruent with those of other stakeholders may be deemed a ‘legitimate and sufficiently unbiased’ choice (Gray, 1985:924). A ‘neutral third party’ may, however, still be regarded as the first choice to convene the process, irrespective of the presence of ‘overt conflict’ or not (Gray, 1985:924). The ability to be completely neutral is still a debatable perception. Regardless, a convener possessing appreciative skills, legitimate authority and the ability to rally stakeholders to participate is needed to commence the collaboration process.

(32)

23 | P a g e

2.1.4.2 Scoping the Wicked Problem

Van Huijstee and Glasbergen (2008) show that businesses can plot problems on an ‘Issue Matrix’– the vertical axis indicating the probability of occurrence whilst the horizontal axis shows its impact on the organisation.

Van Huijstee and Glasbergen (2008:303) infer that problem identification may also be initiated in a more ‘intuitive manner’ when stakeholders meet at a neutral event and identify mutual concerns, or when business is invited by other parties such as non-governmental organisations, industry, communities, environmental representatives and / or various levels of government to collaborate on shared problems or projects. International roundtables held at ‘industry, sector or product [value] chain’ level also provide a platform to identify and begin engagement on mutual problem areas. The authors infer that these forums typically provide a more ‘relaxed and open atmosphere’ more conducive to positive engagement as opposed to the potentially hostile initial phases of a dialogue process. Ultimately the chosen problem should be the central focus of the collaboration and not the convening organisation. (van Huisjtee & Glasbergen, 2008:303-304).

The different discourses used by the various stakeholders should begin to be surfaced when attempting to understand and frame the problem domain. Hardy, Lawrence and Grant (2005) conclude that language used within organisations does not merely reflect its reality, it actually constructs an organisation’s reality. Discourse frames ‘identities, contexts, objects of value, and correct procedures’, ultimately shaping what is said, how and by whom (Hardy et al, 2005:60). It is essential that the facilitator develop an understanding of the various discourses so that they are able to act as a bridge between the different discourse and perception divides.

2.1.4.3 Identification and Selection of Stakeholders

Gray (1985) argues that a collaborative process should have the requisite diversity amongst the stakeholders to fairly represent the complexity and information needs of the wicked problem under consideration. She reflects that such diversity strengthens the problem domain (or container’s) capacity to continually learn from the evolving and adapting system at the centre of the wicked problem. All stakeholders may not be relevant to, nor interested in the process simultaneously and it is recommended

(33)

24 | P a g e

that the ‘inclusions of [relevant and necessary] stakeholders be continuously assessed’. Gray (1985) concludes that the better the selection and inclusion of stakeholders in the problem solution development, the greater the acceptance and implementation of the solution. (Gray, 1985:919).

Van de Kerkhof (2006:286) explains stakeholders can be selected in the preparation phase of the process ‘on the basis of extensive’ interviewing by the organising (facilitation and convening) team. This method reinforces the need to identify stakeholders that have a legitimate2 stake within the problem. Gray (1985:922) describes such stakeholders with the right to participate as ‘those being impacted by the actions of other stakeholders’ whereas the capacity to participate implies that the stakeholder ‘possess resources and skills sufficient to justify their involvement in collaborative efforts’. Being transparent about the selection of the stakeholders lends credibility to the process as well as ensuring quality of the process as ‘dissident, more critical voices about different approaches’ will also be heard (Gray & Stites, 2013). At the same time, the facilitation team have to establish an idea of the optimal working group size and to what extent ‘individuality’ needs to be maintained (Phillips & Phillips, 1993:540).

2.1.4.4 The Motivation of each Participating Stakeholder

Drawing on prior research which considered the ‘when’ and ‘why’ of collaborations, Schein (1993) and Burchell and Cook (2008) concur that a facilitator must comprehend the motivation for stakeholders to partake in the collaboration process. These may range from:

 leveraging off ‘complementary resources’ (Gray & Stites, 2013)

 ‘influencing business practice

 representing their organisation or members’ interest

 retaining legitimacy and operability’

 gaining insight into various perspectives of the debate

 achieving ‘outcomes that can only be achieved’ through collaboration

 establishing and / or strengthening of relationships

 individual learning ‘within such engagements’ (Burchell & Cook, 2007:42)

 integration of and collective learning from multiple disciplines

(34)

25 | P a g e

 prospects of informing and influencing policy and legislation developments

(Gray & Stites, 2013).

‘Mutual positive motivation’ occurs when participation benefits exceed participation costs for stakeholders (Walton in Gray, 1985:921). If this perception is not present, incentives may be necessary to ‘induce participation’ (Gray 1985:921). If stakeholder interdependence on committed resources continues, coupled with the aspiration to shift the status quo of a problem domain, it may sufficiently motivate the establishment of a more formal governance structure. A formal structure post the close-out of the facilitation process in turn holds the potential benefits of lobbying ‘for policy changes’, ‘influencing public opinion’ and / or establishing broader national, regional or global networks (Gray, 1985:931).

2.1.4.5 Facilitation Environment

Facilitators have to carefully consider the physical environment in which groups meet as it influences in a critical way how a group is able to function (Phillips & Phillips, 1993). This is because the facilitation container consists of both the physical and metaphorical space and the physical space would establish the initial atmosphere and tone for both spaces (Barak, 2009). Aspects the facilitator would have to consider include the shape and size of the room, lighting and air conditioning and their control, seating arrangements (including the actual chairs) and optimising line of sight, visual aids requirements (projectors, flip charts etc.), refreshments and their frequency, and stereo systems (Phillips & Phillips, 1993; Barak, 2009). It is important that distractions be minimised and that there are clear sight lines at all times within the room that is used to encourage safety, openness and collaboration (Phillips & Phillips, 1993).

2.1.4.6 Process Design and Structure

Phillips and Phillips (1993:541) discuss the intangible limits and boundaries a facilitator has to construct to contain and focus the group without compromising ‘creative exploration’. In designing the flow of the process, a facilitator would consider several aspects. They need to clarify the expectations and purpose of the group as well as the interconnections and interdependencies between stakeholders and how to surface them (Freeth & Annecke, 2016). The facilitator needs to identify tasks that do not break the flow of work or cause distraction in assessing how to sequence and

(35)

26 | P a g e

connect group activities and when to break into smaller groups and when plenary is necessary. They also need to recognise when to speed up dialogue and when to slow down to pause and reflect, as well as consider how to protect individuals and the group from inappropriate actions. A core characteristic of good process design is flexibility – recognising that the process is dynamic and malleable, and will need to be continuously adapted as it unfolds (Crous, 2011). All of these considerations aid a facilitator to manage both the complexity of group dynamics and the content.

It is not the role of the facilitator to contribute to the content of the dialogue but rather to provide guidance in terms of process and structure, specifically the process design (Phillips & Phillips, 1993). Within this ambit, it is also necessary to establish and manage realistic deliverable expectations if a set timeframe has been given within which to conduct the process (Bendell, 2000). The onus also rests on the facilitator to give clear guidance and manage expectations as to how long the process could possibly take as stakeholders cannot commit time and resources to the collaboration indefinitely (Bendell, 2000).

2.1.4.7 Computer Modelling Assistance

Philips and Philips (1993) propose that computer modelling can assist a facilitator when dealing with opinion and perspective. Creating models of higher-level perspectives, systems mapping or sensitivity analysis can all visually assist the group with better decision making without undue influence by the facilitator. It also assists the participants to ‘see themselves as the source of their problems’ (Senge et al., 2004:2). Modelling also has the potential to alleviate heated debates and disagreements as participants can consider various scenarios without commitment. However, it does not remove the responsibility of data gathering and capturing, judgment of outputs and the emotions attached to scenarios from the facilitation process (Phillips & Phillips, 1993).

2.1.4.8 Conduct Rules that Govern the Container

Establishing and maintaining safety within the container is a key priority of the facilitator. In order to achieve this, the facilitator requires the stakeholders to behave in accordance with pre-determined and agreed conduct rules. Such rules may include ‘providing equal opportunity for participation’, ‘accepting order, justice’, … ‘respect and responsibility for helping each [participant] learn’ (Mezirow, 1997:11).